Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Minister Wants Full Open-Skies Between US-Canada  
User currently offlineViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 9
Posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

I am not sure if this topic was discussed earlier, I suspect it might have (indirectly) in the past. Still, I would like to get people's thoughts on this issue, given current state of the airline industry, especially in the US. Here is a "new" development.

The Globe and Mail (link) and CTV (link) reported that Canadian Transport Minister Jean Lapierre wants to pursue an new open-skies agreement with US, when Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta visits Ottawa later this month. If approved, US airlines will be allowed to carry Canadian passengers between Canadian cities, and vice-versa for Canadian airlines.

What is interesting that the US secretary is in Ottawa to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Canada/US first "open-skies" agreement, which I think only lacks the 8th freedom (cabotage).

In the not too distant past, the Americans were very welcoming to the open-skies concept, and so was (and still is) Air Canada's CEO Milton. But a lot has changed, including 9/11, high oil prices, US and UA (and DL near-) bankruptcies, not to mention the already high level of competition in both countries right now.

What do the US administration/airlines/public think of the idea of a full open-skies agreement. I personally see it as just another form of free-trade, and one of the final steps in deregulating the airline industry. But, like many others, I am not quite sure if this is the right time for such an agreement. It could be the final straw that could break some airlines, ruining some people's livelihoods.

Any thoughts ???

Cheers,
ViveLeYHZ

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

This would be a wonderful boost to competition, with more choices, lower prices and better service for passengers. Bring it on!

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

Not so sure that's a wish he'd want granted...

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

I'd love to see this. Even with full 8th freedoms, I don't think any airline is going to completely go in and infiltrate the other country. I do expect to see some more competition and logical routes. Some possible examples of those that would benefit would be:

Westjet to Hawaii via US west coast
Alaska/Horizon beefing up their YVR focus city and connecting traffic from
smaller Canadian cities to YVR
More low cost transborder service since a carrier like B6, F9, or WN could
connect some dots within Canada to maintain a large enough presence to
warrent another station
YYZ being opened up as a possible connection point for US transcons
ORD, DTW, MSP being used as a transfer point to offer more options then just
AC, for connecting traffic between small destinations in Canada


Overall I think it would be good for competition and open up some more flights. It will give carriers more room to expand, which I see as a good thing. Hopefully it will come through, because with preclearance flying between the US and Canada is a breeze.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3343 times:

Hell no!

We have enough competition as it is. Air Canada is bleeding cash all over the place with JetsGo and WestJet and SkyService and who ever else their is. So why not add jetBlue, Southwest, USA 3000, AirTran and Frontier to that. And vice versa. All in all, its a horrible idea.

AAndrew


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3339 times:

It's interesting that Canada is bringing this up, since the way hubs are arranged, I would think American carriers would benefit most.

Canadians would be able to transfer at hubs close to the U.S.-Canadian border such as MSP, ORD, DTW, CLE, etc., and buy a ticket between two Canadian points via the U.S. without having to "marry" two tickets via a U.S. mid-point as they do now, and v.v. The only comparably sized hub in Canada to siphon off U.S. traffic would seem to be YYZ.

I believe it's short-sighted to concentrate on the cabotage rights to operate services point-to-point within each other's country, dismissing the obvious modified 6th Freedom hubbing opportunites that could rake off a substantial amount of traffic (a modified 6th being the right of an airline of one country to carry traffic between two points of a foreign country via its own country of registry). The reason being that it would take resources and assets to operate new point-to-point services, and literally nothing beyond advertising to move Canadians via U.S. hubs.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16365 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

This is nonsense.

US airlines would not be interested in flying domestic Cdn services for several reasons: such flights would be non-hub point to point, they would be low yield.

Similarly, Cdn airlines collectively have so little capacity, they have little financial ability to open any sort of US hub or expand into US domestic routes.

If this is ever approved, I don't see more than a small handful of routes being added. This is not worth the time of our government transportation bureaucrats.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6788 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

I agree with YYZ.. it sounds nice but it is not practical at all... I believe that the current agreement is beneficial to all and should remain..


Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3299 times:

Canada/US first "open-skies" agreement, which I think only lacks the 8th freedom

The Canada-US open-skies has the two following key restrictions :

a) No fifth freedoms (with 2 specified exceptions viz. HNL-Australia and YQX-Europe);
b) All-cargo services are restricted to a single point in the other country (with 1 exception viz. SDF-YHM-YYZ), even without traffic rights.


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1666 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Even if true open skies is just a pipe dream being discussed to make politicians look pro-consumer, there are opportunities for moderate liberalization, including more fifths and expanded cargo rights, as per B747-437B's message. However, if indirect cabotage were permitted, it would favor Canada, not the US as AeroWesty suggests. Domestic US routes operated via Canadian connections would not involve any customs clearance. Because of preclearance at Canadian airports, a passenger could fly LAX-YYZ-BOS and never enter Canadian airspace, just make gate to gate transfers, never leaving the "precleared" area of YYZ. A passenger doing the reverse thing - let's say YUL-ORD-YVR - would have to be pre-cleared at YUL, and then clear Canadian customs again at YVR. The US domestic routing via Canada would be no different than any US domestic connection, but the Canadian domestic routing via a US airport, IMHO, would have to be really, really cheap to entice passengers to do the customs thing twice. Imagine arriving in Vancouver at the same time as a couple of 747s from Asia.





User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

On further thinking, the only reason beyond additional 5th Freedom rights I could think that this could be advantageous to the Canadians, is if, and only if, Canada had less of a requirement for the percentage of domestic investment in an airline in comparison to U.S. laws and still be able to call Canada its country of registry.

Then it would allow someone like Branson to open a VirginCanada to run domestic operations in the U.S. instead of a U.S.-based airline, and control a greater percentage of the company.

It's a big if though, and I don't have details on the limits of foreign investment in a Canadian airline.

Cheers.

(If anyone does know what the Canadian rules are regarding foreign ownership of airlines is, it'd be interesting to know.)



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3238 times:

Because of preclearance at Canadian airports, a passenger could fly LAX-YYZ-BOS and never enter Canadian airspace

Don't you mean "Canadian pre-clearance at American airports"? It's been ages since I've been to Canada, but I thought there were now some U.S. pre-clearance facilities setup for passengers flying from Canada to the U.S. too. If I'm incorrect on that, you've certainly got a point, I'll concede that.  Smile



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineACAfan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 710 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

NW at MSP will be the clear winner if this goes through


Freddie Laker ... May be at peace with his maker ... But he is a persona non grata ... with IATA
User currently offlinePetazulu From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

ACAFan,
Why? If I am Canadian- why would I want to go through customs in order to get from YVR to YYZ? I can only see this benefitting AC, because I could go from LGA to LAX without clearing immigration and customs. Canada has special sections of their airports marked off for US flights. The US does not.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

It appears Robert Milton not only is for liberalized open skies between the U.S. and Canada, he has a fondness for shrimp:

http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/media/presentations/yorku.html

And the U.S. is for it, but not many people who responded to the news:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20040125183636299



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3075 times:

It would be awesome if clearing customs can be made easier, or even better gotten-rid-of all together, for passengers originating and arriving in the same country.

I must admit, the issue of clearing customs never crossed my mind when I posted this topic, none the less, I think it is about time that our two countries have a single aviation market. Canada and the US have more flights between them than any two other countries.

What about the EU countries ? Is there a full open-skies between any of the EU countries ? Flights entirely within the EU are treated as domestic, hence no customs, so at least they don't have this problem.

Cheers,
ViveLeYHZ


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33280 posts, RR: 71
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

I think it's a great idea.

The only thing this will really change is that US and Canadian customers can now fly domestic via an international point, which adds compietition. Airlines won't be rushing to start cabatoge routes. I don't see it hurting much.



a.
User currently offlineBkonner From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

Howdy,

EU carriers can fly where ever they want to within the Union. EasyJet has a large "domestic" network in France. Flights within Schengen states (including Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and a few others) do not require customs clearance if the flight originated within this territory. Flights from Schegnen states in the EU to non-Schengen states in the EU (including the UK and Ireland) may require some form of passport control.

Bkonner


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

This might be a good step toward eliminating customs and immigration between the US and Canada. Full open borders would save billions of dollars a year in unnecessary bureaucracy that wastes everyone's time. Air liberalization would put pressure on the governments to further liberalize. If European countries can open their borders, then the US and Canada can too.

User currently offlineLH477 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 584 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

This might be a good step toward eliminating customs and immigration between the US and Canada. Full open borders would save billions of dollars a year in unnecessary bureaucracy that wastes everyone's time. Air liberalization would put pressure on the governments to further liberalize. If European countries can open their borders, then the US and Canada can too.

Would never happen. The US is already quiet paranoid about Canadian
immigration and our "soft" immigration laws....Many in the US still believe
the 9/11 terrorists came through Canada. Only way possible would be if Canada became 51st state.

I imagine Canadian airliners would be salivating at the prospect of doing
US domestics...I don't imagine the same feeling from the US carriers....
The Canadian domestic market may be too small for US carriers.....



Come on you gunners......!!!!!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

>Air Canada is bleeding cash all over the place with JetsGo and WestJet and SkyService and who ever else their is. <

Did you look at the recent AC financials. They are much, much stronger than they were, and turning an operating profit



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAC7E7 From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 666 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2798 times:

It would benefit the Canadian airlines much more than it would the U.S. airlines. U.S. carriers would simply focus on major cities. If it were allowed, I suspect there would be a period in which Canadian carriers would have access to the U.S. market before U.S. carriers had access to the Canadian market, like Open Skies in the 90s. Also, if this was allowed, we may see AC make further orders for Embraer jets. AC could very well be in a good position to take advantage of a new open skies deal.

-AC7E7


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

No sane person in the US is paranoid about border issues with Canada. The Bush administration tries to fan the flames of paranioa for political reasons and some people have do-nothing jobs that enforcing border controls, but the general public considers the border controls a nuisance, a waste of money, or a non-issue. And we know that the Bush administration will not extend past 20 Jan 2009.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Open Skies Between Europe And US...at Last! posted Mon Nov 21 2005 17:20:50 by SQ773
US Seeks Open Skies Deal With Canada posted Sun Jan 25 2004 21:47:36 by CanadaEH
Open-skies Treaty US/Europe. Biggest Winner/loser. posted Thu Jan 27 2005 16:18:36 by Juventus
Time For Full Open-Skies posted Wed Jan 12 2005 09:41:13 by Scotron11
Indian Pm Approves Full Open Skies posted Mon Jan 12 2004 23:17:45 by Behramjee
Open Skies Between India And Singapore Soon. posted Thu Apr 10 2003 02:58:57 by United777
EU Urges Members To Renounce Open-Skies With US posted Tue Nov 19 2002 19:55:59 by N79969
Canada-US Open Skies Policy posted Sun Dec 18 2005 08:56:21 by RyGuy
Canada-US Transborder Open Skies posted Sun May 29 2005 15:55:44 by Aseem
Canada Signs "open Skies" With Serbia And Croatia posted Mon Dec 11 2006 20:53:23 by AirbusfanYYZ